Bush's Immigration Policy

[Gregg Bolinger]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/elec04.prez.bush.immigration/index.html

"There is an economic need, and it is important that we have an immigration policy that meets those economic needs," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan in a preview of the speech.

What about American Citizens economic needs? Why can't we take care of our own cizitenz and then worry about the immigrants? American Citizens need jobs too. (When I say American Citizens, I mean all American Citizens. I am not being racist!)
"America should be a welcoming society. We are a nation of immigrants, and our nation is better for it."
Completely agree 100%
He said the president has been working on a way "to match willing workers with willing employees."
Let's match willing American Citizen workers with willing employees first.
However, one Bush administration official said a mechanism will be in place to ensure "first dibs on jobs to go American workers."
I hope so. I'll believe it when I see it. Notice it was "...one Bush administration official..."
The official said the proposal would allow migrant workers to collect retirement benefits from Social Security taxes they pay while working in the United States.
That's nice since by the time I retire, my Social Security won't be there anymore.

So what does everyone else think about this?

[Gregg Bolinger]

The official said the proposal would allow migrant workers to collect retirement benefits from Social Security taxes they pay while working in the United States.
I misinterpreted this statement. But there is still a problem with allowing non-us citizens to aquire retirement benefits in the US. You should be an American Citizen first. I thought that was the point.

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
The official said the proposal would allow migrant workers to collect retirement benefits from Social Security taxes they pay while working in the United States.
I misinterpreted this statement. But there is still a problem with allowing non-us citizens to aquire retirement benefits in the US. You should be an American Citizen first. I thought that was the point.

Social Security was started, as I understand it, as a means for working people to forcibly put away some of their earnings towards their retirement fund. Well, if this is true, then if I'm taxed under Social Security for my retirement fund from my earnings, then I should have the right to withdraw what I put in it, regardless of my citizenship status, as long as I'm legally employed. If I'm not legally employed then most likely neither I nor my employer will be paying the employement tax.
However, what has happened is that Social Security, which was to have been for my retirement has actually morphed into a fund that pays for the retirment of other people (the current retirees). But this is a different problem.
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: WorldCitizen ]
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: WorldCitizen ]

[Mapraputa Is]

My parents life saving went to zero when my country made its noble way from "dictatorship" to "democracy"
Since then, all money put any place further than 1 meter from me I consider lost. Forget about them.
My retirement fond (what's that?) will be accumulated under my pillow. Of course, by the time I retire they will be nothing but paper.
Now that's what I call "life"!!!
[ January 06, 2004: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Prakash Dwivedi]

i really doubt whether US govt will give legal status to illegal immigrants. Because this will further encourage illegal immigration.
What i think is once all the illegal immigrants apply for legal status, US Govt will throw them out.

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Prakash Dwivedi:
i really doubt whether US govt will give legal status to illegal immigrants. Because this will further encourage illegal immigration.

US has done this a few times in the past, i.e., given legal status to illegal immigrants. The rationale for it was that they (the illegal immigrants) were here & were working but not paying any taxes (their employers weren't paying any payroll taxes either). So, by granting them a legal status, they hoped to get some tax revenue. Considering the payscale that the illegal immigrants would be on, it is highly unlikely that they would have ended up paying any tax; however, the employer would certainly have been forced to pay the payroll taxes.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:

US has done this a few times in the past, i.e., given legal status to illegal immigrants.

My memory is not clear on this, but I think it was for Nicaguarans and Guatamalans about 10+ years ago...

Considering the payscale that the illegal immigrants would be on, it is highly unlikely that they would have ended up paying any tax; however, the employer would certainly have been forced to pay the payroll taxes.

Employers often pass on all or most of their costs to consumers [in other words to all of us]...

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Just a few weeks ago, Walmart got caught working their illegal immigrants 7 days a week at sub-poverty level wages. Today their puppet in Washington went to bat for them.
I checked the fallacy page, and the one this could be called is not there. So you Rebuplicans who want to hang me for saying this came after that, does not mean that caused this, buzz off.
Doesn't the plan remind you of the H1-B program?
[ January 07, 2004: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]

[Gregg Bolinger]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Doesn't the plan remind you of the H1-B program?

Not really. The H1-B program actually served a purpose. There was a need. Bush is trying to say that there is a need in America for low-wage employees and thinks that immigrants will be more than happy to fill those shoes.
Do we really know that there aren't enough Americans willing the fill those shoes, but no one agency is helping Americans find those jobs?
Yeah all this comes as no surprise being an election year and all and Bush trying to gather votes.
Just a couple of off topic additions...
Unemployment rate is determined by the amount of people collecting Unemployment wages. Those wages run out. So Americans without jobs for more than 2 year are still unemployed yet don't count as part of the unemployed population.
It is possible to make better than minimum wage on wellfare. Granted most people probably don't but also keep in mind that wellfare'd Americans get free healthcare as well which is HUGE.
I had to pay $1200 for my first son being born and my wife's hospital stay. Her sister had a baby 30 days later and the state picked up the tab!!
Ok, I am rambling off topic. I will stop.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

They just can't find anybody. ( They don't want to pay. )
It's for three years and renewable. ( sounds like h1-b )
If there's an American that will take the job... ( same as h1-b ).
When an industry is short on factories, they have to plan ahead and build more or rent some. Y2K was a 1000 years in coming. There was plenty of time to train more workers.
Now he wants to spice the deal with Social Security so that crowd of subsidized voters will go for it too. They don't need jobs they need cheap workers along with free prescription drugs.
Workers are going to go home after some undefined period. ( sounds like H1-B ).

[Sadanand Murthy]

SM : US has done this a few times in the past, i.e., given legal status to illegal immigrants.
HS : My memory is not clear on this, but I think it was for Nicaguarans and Guatamalans about 10+ years ago...

I remember that Reagan did this in, I believe, 1986. I don't know who the targeted nationalities were.
I also rememer that a couple of times the administration had a green card lottery which I think (not sure though) was open to illegal immigrants also.

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Employers often pass on all or most of their costs to consumers [in other words to all of us]...

They will do this whether the illegal immigrants that they currently employ are made legal or if they replace the illegal immigrants with legal immigrants/permanet residents/citizens. So if we don't want to have the costs passed on to us, then we will have to live with illegal immigration. Is that what we want?

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Just a few weeks ago, Walmart got caught working their illegal immigrants 7 days a week at sub-poverty level wages. Today their puppet in Washington went to bat for them.
[ January 07, 2004: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]

Meat packing companies in Nebraska have time and again been caught using illegal immigrants over the last 3 or 4 years that I remember. However, neither the state nor the fed govt did anything (maybe the companies were fined) to curtail this practice. Perhaps walmart just happened to be the biggest fisth that got caught. Perhaps that did impel the admin. to propose these changes.
I keep hearing that Americans don't want to do these low-end, low-paying jobs. Are there any credible studies done that prove this?

[Paul McKenna]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
I keep hearing that Americans don't want to do these low-end, low-paying jobs. Are there any credible studies done that prove this?

I have posted a link explaining that "myth" in this thread

[Ken Krebs]

It's just another cynical ploy to grab votes from the clueless. The Republicans in Congress will never pass it.
All the businesses and wealthy individuals really like the status quo with lots of illegals who'll work cheaply and help depress wages.
The only real solution to this and some of our security problems is to have a fairly liberal but controlled immigration policy with tight border controls and jail time for those who hire illegals.

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

SM: I keep hearing that Americans don't want to do these low-end, low-paying jobs. Are there any credible studies done that prove this?

PK: I have posted a link explaining that "myth" in this thread

I skimmed through that article. But it doesn't prove that American want/don't want to do these jobs. All it does is cite some conclusions & inferences of the impact of illegal migrant workers doing these jobs & how by having Americans do the same job these sectors will benefit technologically. But it doesn't say that the Americans are willing to/want to do these jobs.

[Paul McKenna]

SM,
You are right, there is no article proving that Americans dont want to do these jobs but there is the reality proving that. I think it all falls back to simple flaws in the economic policies of US.
1. There is a welfare program that is keeping people from taking these jobs that "at present" go to the illegal immigrants. If you reduce / remove the welfare system there will be more of an incentive for people to go seek a job. Of what I hear, people are recieving more through welfare than what they would if they took these jobs. Why in the world work then? (Ofcourse this is purely hear-say evidence that I am using..)
2. Repealing the minimum wage law might help but I dont know what would be the consequences on the other side. Minimum wage law forces the employer to spend more than he can. Therefore the employer tends to hire illegals where he has more of a bargaining power.
3. Any amount of enforcement is never going to work unless every American becomes an INS officer.

[Tim Baker]

Removing welfare might force some people back in to work but it will force other people on to the streets aswell.

[John Dunn]

I have posted a link explaining my feeling on the low-paying workers
this thread at 5:48pm

Keep in mind that unlike many other countries, the dirt-poor can come here and eventually BECOME an American. Not many places allow that, so maybe that is a reason that they do the jobs Americans won't, b/c they're willing to pay the price to BE Amercian. Whatever level you think is the bottom for Americans, lift up the grime and underneath it you'll find the next batch of folks in a ... niche. I'm wondering if it is a law of nature or a law of sociology.

[Joy Jade]

I think, the greater issue to WORRY about is "several U.S. companies exporting thousands of jobs to India, China, etc..". (See list at Lou Dobbs show) and it is still continuing (lately it was Levi's). The jobs were high paying jobs when they were here in US. The gov't should do something to companies doing this for the sake of Americans paying taxes. Just like how they control H1-Bs. Maybe a policy should be in place so that "U.S. companies" wouldn't just freely give work to other countries American citizens deserve. Instead of attacking too much about illegal aliens here, we should attack companies giving away high paying jobs to other countries.

[Joy Jade]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Southwest/01/08/levi.s.closing.ap/index.html

[Bela Bardak]

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:

You are right, there is no article proving that Americans dont want to do these jobs but there is the reality proving that. I think it all falls back to simple flaws in the economic policies of US.
1. There is a welfare program that is keeping people from taking these jobs that "at present" go to the illegal immigrants. If you reduce / remove the welfare system there will be more of an incentive for people to go seek a job. Of what I hear, people are recieving more through welfare than what they would if they took these jobs. Why in the world work then? (Ofcourse this is purely hear-say evidence that I am using..)
2. Repealing the minimum wage law might help but I dont know what would be the consequences on the other side. Minimum wage law forces the employer to spend more than he can. Therefore the employer tends to hire illegals where he has more of a bargaining power.
3. Any amount of enforcement is never going to work unless every American becomes an INS officer.

1) Immigration: The US is a country of immigrants. Immigration is part of what gives the US it's economic advantage in the world. Despite the current pain I'm an advocate of allowing immigrantio, even very humble immigrants, into the US. Not knowing the details of the Bush proposal I cannot judge it as yet but generally I have a positive feeling about the idea.
2) Welfare. Back in ancient days (pre-1996) I was a vociferous critic of welfare and welfare policy. No more, because welfare is no longer a career option for poor people. Yes there are exceptions to the 2 years and out rule, but not enough to perpetuate the previous sick system. In one Wisconsin county studied the welfare roles went from 700+ in 1995 to 4 in 2000. The 4 were temporary, women in the last stages of pregnancy or who had given birth recently. The article showed how an applicant was steered into employment without actually ever receiving a welfare check. The office gave a lot of help, helping her hook into local job networks and to people who supplied her with interview and work clothes and an old car to help her get to work.
This kind of welfare is the kind of thing which helps make a country decent I think.
3) I'm not for decreasing the minimum wage. If anything increase it, at least on the state by state level. If we're going to ask everyone to work lets make it rewarding. If that means some illegal immigrants or Bush's 'guest workers' so be it.
[ January 09, 2004: Message edited by: Bela Bardak ]

[John Dunn]

JJ: Just like how they control H1-Bs. Maybe a policy should be in place so that "U.S. companies" wouldn't just freely give work to other countries American citizens deserve.
Are company owners 'allowed' to choose their workers and places of business? It is amazing that we live in world where this off-shore work can be done, so easily.
IMO, American citizens don't 'deserve' to get a company in their backyard. Why should I be 'entitled' to a job at Levi's. I'm entitled to buy whatever jeans I decide. We all could boycott any foreign-made Levis OR our government could impose a high tariff on goods that come from factories where labor laws don't match our own. The Japanese bought some legitimacy to the car market. So all these jobs leaving maybe spur some real innovation or change in technology that Paul's article mentioned in this link:this thread at 8:55am on Jan 08

[Rufus BugleWeed]

IMO, American citizens don't 'deserve' to get a company in their backyard.

They built the roads, the schools, the governments so that it would be a nice place to live. America used to be a wilderness that well to do europeans exiled their dregs to. Return on investment is not a gift.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
our government could impose a high tariff on goods that come from factories where labor laws don't match our own.

That's the only equitable solution. I would have no problem with outsourcing if tariffs were levied as they are in the auto industry, in order to level the playing field.

[Ken Krebs]

3. Any amount of enforcement is never going to work unless every American becomes an INS officer.

If this argument is valid for immigration policy, then it must also be a good argument for legalizing drugs.
"Any amount of enforcement is never going to work unless every American becomes a DEA officer."